Today I gave 'Marie Daly' a far better spot, one she richly deserves. Sun, water! That tiny plant in the white circle is a sucker from 'Fair Bianca'. Now I have two tiny non-productive 'Fair Bianca's instead of only one. She shouldn't have.
In no sun and with no water, 'Marie Daly' still made the effort to bloom, and her foliage was pristine--although to be honest, she had little foliage.
I also gave the original 'Fair Bianca' a much better location. Merit far more questionable in this case. At least she will be where I cannot ignore her.
Should gardens be strictly a meritocracy? Should plants which cannot quite reach the ideal be ruthlessly removed? No performance problems with Aloe ferox...
If high performance was mandatory, we could not experiment, nor could we be unreasonably patient. Sometimes a less vigorous plant is the right plant when there is not much room...
If the garden was strictly a meritocracy, the merely competent would be abandoned. Any sentimental plants--those grown in memory of someone, those gifts from loved ones--would be judged solely on performance and beauty.
The gardener would need be ruthless as a billionaire in search of ever larger profits.
No...no thank you. Merit, yes. Ruthlessness--it might be good for the look of the garden, but what about the soul of the gardener? Winner take all--is it any better for society than for a garden?
In no sun and with no water, 'Marie Daly' still made the effort to bloom, and her foliage was pristine--although to be honest, she had little foliage.
I also gave the original 'Fair Bianca' a much better location. Merit far more questionable in this case. At least she will be where I cannot ignore her.
Should gardens be strictly a meritocracy? Should plants which cannot quite reach the ideal be ruthlessly removed? No performance problems with Aloe ferox...
If high performance was mandatory, we could not experiment, nor could we be unreasonably patient. Sometimes a less vigorous plant is the right plant when there is not much room...
If the garden was strictly a meritocracy, the merely competent would be abandoned. Any sentimental plants--those grown in memory of someone, those gifts from loved ones--would be judged solely on performance and beauty.
The gardener would need be ruthless as a billionaire in search of ever larger profits.
No...no thank you. Merit, yes. Ruthlessness--it might be good for the look of the garden, but what about the soul of the gardener? Winner take all--is it any better for society than for a garden?
I believe sometimes plants have a place in the garden even if they don't perform their optimum - simply because they are nice, sweet, unusual or interesting! It is often difficult to change soil and sun conditions so we might accept a poorer performance as a trade-off. Perfectly acceptable :-)
ReplyDeleteBy the way, what is the name of that gorgeous deep red rose (?) on the second last photo?
Should have labeled that, sorry. It's 'Fourth Of July'.
Deleteabsolutely agree!...you shadows and lighting are captivating....Yes I let my yard go halfway between natual and forced into perfection....
ReplyDeleteThe light was wonderful due to rare fog that lingered all day. Quite a treat for us.
DeleteAs usual I'm not focusing on the subject but rather staring off in another direction. Please tell me what the shrub is (a callistemon?) just behind the wall where the rose is featured, with the beautiful mountains in the distance.
ReplyDeleteYes I was more interested in the background too. Calothamnus villosus, Silky Net. Hardy to about 16F.
DeleteIt's hard to imagine the REAL gardeners I know (yes, I'm that snotty) gardening purely on the basis of merit. We have our tried-and-true favorites, our regionally appropriate plants, our natives or native-adaptations, and then we have the wildly inappropriate plants that just grab us and don't let go. I wouldn't say roses are inappropriate for your climate, but they clearly present you with challenges. Agaves, aloes and Australian plants present me with different challenges....that Aloe ferox is an absolute winner!
ReplyDelete